Not sure how long for, as I switched over, and that is my point. If they get fantastic women like Sammie on days, and Ree on nights then they need to make sure people can see them or people will move on.

I wish the channel every success, but I am sure Elite and Babestation etc are smiling to themselves with the technical issues.

Its can't be co-incidence that Elite introduced us to a new girl last night and have Danica on until late. They are worried, the market is small and every call counts so to survive these guys need to ensure they broadcast.

Mmm.. as much as i like every girl so far they have had on, the sets are the same style. Boring as ever.

The girls just sit/lay predominantly in the same position all day long. I believe the girls should interact with the viewer as well as the caller - obviously this will be one & the same sometimes.

With these boring style sets, there is no way they can do this. The sets restrict them doing anything oher than laying there all the time. The sets should promote the girl even further. Allow them to be creative (nothing any restrictions would prevent i'm sure), have a set that gives, for example, room for the girl to not only sit/lay down, but get up, walk around, dance, jiggle, gesture, talk/sing on the mike, be spontaineous etc etc if they wish to.

I cannot believe that it is the girls' choice to just be, for want of a better phrase, a vegetable on the sofa/bed all day!

Not that anybody is going to give sh*t.. but this is why i'm losing interest in these shows, quite quickly. And yes, i do call them every now & again, before anybody asks me that one!

Some more critisism, Bob, but like the nightshow post, it is meant constructively. I don't know if you're listening or intend to act on any of the feedback you're recieving from all of us here, but I'll give it a go anyway.

Why have you opted for the fully clothed, dull-as-dishwater style daytime show instead of the scantily-clad and sexy format employed by the likes of Elite and Bangbabes? This approach evidently attracts a constant stream of callers, which is surely what you're hoping for. Isn't it?

Very good point, like i said on a previous post, in my opinion a channel will go nowhere, if you don't listen to the most important thing the customers. We know what makes a good show if you listen and take on board feedback from people then you will make people happy. The sexier and more revealing outfits will attract much more attention, If you show of the babes a bit more, show off their great figures with more sexier outfits, then you will surely bring in more calls and more money

(05-10-2009 19:04 )StanTheMan Wrote: Some more critisism, Bob, but like the nightshow post, it is meant constructively. I don't know if you're listening or intend to act on any of the feedback you're recieving from all of us here, but I'll give it a go anyway.

Why have you opted for the fully clothed, dull-as-dishwater style daytime show instead of the scantily-clad and sexy format employed by the likes of Elite and Bangbabes? This approach evidently attracts a constant stream of callers, which is surely what you're hoping for. Isn't it?

Listen to the customers, eh? Novel approach but dammit, it just might bally work!

Actually chaps, all gags aside, I've been noting all the feedback with great interest. This sort of focus group info normally costs a bloody fortune and I'm never one to look a gift horse in the mouth, so please, as long as things are civil and well-mannered (they do, after all cost nothing) then it is warmly received. I may not be able to act upon your suggestions and requests immediately if indeed ever, but they are all considered.

So many thanks to one and all then, and by way of explanation for the rather guarded nature of our content, it's perhaps best said that a certain organisation that I shall henceforth refer to as 'The Powers That Be' have got their beady eye on us. Suffice to say that I've been a member of a lot of clubs down the years: had a few dust ups, rumped the wrong gals if you know what I mean. I've made many an enemy in my time. So I'm afraid it's a case of softly, softly catchee monkey, what? I'd ask you judge us in three months time chaps, rather than now. You seem a decent bunch, I'd certainly afford you the same courtesy were the boot on the other foot.

I suppose I should sign off with some God awful corporate speil like, 'Thanks for your feedback and your continued interest in Club Paradiso.' but then I'd have to kill myself, and so I won't.

(05-10-2009 20:03 )Bob Paradiso Wrote: So many thanks to one and all then, and by way of explanation for the rather guarded nature of our content, it's perhaps best said that a certain organisation that I shall henceforth refer to as 'The Powers That Be' have got their beady eye on us. Suffice to say that I've been a member of a lot of clubs down the years: had a few dust ups, rumped the wrong gals if you know what I mean. I've made many an enemy in my time. So I'm afraid it's a case of softly, softly catchee monkey, what? I'd ask you judge us in three months time chaps, rather than now. You seem a decent bunch, I'd certainly afford you the same courtesy were the boot on the other foot.

Some stuff for you to peruse concerning "the powers that be."

The Ofcom Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, specifically the EU Television Without Frontiers directive.

The Ofcom Broadcasting Code simply a set of guidelines to current broadcasting law and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament.

If you follow the guidance under the "EU Television Without Frontiers directives you comply with the law. So no justified reasons for you to be fined.

The Department of Culture Media and Sport states that “In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive: “Television Without Frontiers” or TVWF.

Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors.” The key word there is MUST. All broadcasting MUST be compatible with the TVWF Directive.

Article 22 of TVWF:

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast (post watershed topless content, as you do) by any technical measure (the ability for parents to remove all 900 channels from the Sky Digital EPG and the ability to delete seleted channels from freeview, as the case is) that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.
________________________________________________________________​​_______________________________________________________________​_​__________

So, the way I see it by explicit instruction from the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Ofcom Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Law.

It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.

So if you were to show a warning message (as has already been done with the PTBA advert), and show a small “18” certificate after 10pm then the broadcast would be compatible with TVWF Directives as recognised by The Department of Culture Media and Sport and you could comfortably broadcast a level of explicitness similar to Bang Babes current output.
If the daytime broadcasts do not show nudity, or participate in "Adult Chat", then they also would comply with TVWF directives as recognised by The Department of Culture Media and Sport and you could comfortably broadcast a level of explicitness similar to Elite TV's current output.

Or perhaps Ofcom are right to illegally enforce a so called "code"?

But if you are happy to run a business and turn a profit with a "paranoid" style of broadcasting, then what does it matter? It has worked for Cellcast. Good luck either way.

vostok1, your points are all valid however, the babe channels do not fall under normal TV programming guidelines (but the sex channels do). The difference is that the babe channels operate both as a premium rate telephone service and, simultaneously, the promotional advertising for that service. Although changes are afoot in the newer Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive, issues of product placement obvously feature in what the babe channels actually 'sell'. The fact is, Ofcom, ICSTIS and the ASA all share some regulatory responsibility over the babe channels - there's a schizophrenic maelstrom of codes and legislation that the channels have to conform to.

With regard to the TVWF. We can state with absolute certainty that children cannot be seriously impaired by the sight of naked people (even when engaging in sexual activities) - we know this because many thousands of people practice naturism (children included) and, there are societies around the world that do not wear clothes and have sex in full view of each other with no detriment to their children whatsoever. Indeed, it could be argued that the wearing of clothes and sexual censorship seriously impairs the development in children of a sane and natural acceptance of the naked human body and sexual function. Every 'moral' argument against such openness relies upon some unproven religious ideology that infiltrated 'western thinking' some 1600 years ago. It doesn't matter how long we've lived with religious nonsense or how many still believe this claptrap, it still doesn't make it right. Indeed, the fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ensures non-believers should not have their other rights subject to restriction on the basis of bullshit beliefs.

(05-10-2009 23:46 )IanG Wrote: vostok1, your points are all valid however, the babe channels do not fall under normal TV programming guidelines (but the sex channels do). The difference is that the babe channels operate both as a premium rate telephone service and, simultaneously, the promotional advertising for that service. Although changes are afoot in the newer Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive, issues of product placement obvously feature in what the babe channels actually 'sell'. The fact is, Ofcom, ICSTIS and the ASA all share some regulatory responsibility over the babe channels - there's a schizophrenic maelstrom of codes and legislation that the channels have to conform to.

Thanks for the insight there IanG. Very informative.

However, I always found the ASA and Phone Pay Plus (formerly known as ICSTIS) guidelines fairly clear cut and easy to understand and interpret.

I also believe that the ASA and Phone Pay Plus regulations that the channels have to operate under to be of benefit to the viewer, since they are there to protect the consumer. And these clear and fair rules also benefit the broadcasters since all channels have to adhere to the same regulations, which in turn creates a level playing field for all Babe Shows.

I remember Tease Me TV falling foul of ICSTIS for offering sex chat during the day and also continuing conversations on with under-age callers and Babe Star getting into trouble with the ASA for advertising a live service when infact they were playing a pre-recorded loop masquerading as a live broadcast.

When fines are issued in these situations I believe that this is fair, as guidelines are clear on what they can and can't do. And consumers as well as the young are not exploited.

As I said in the previous post, if the broadcasters want to operate their services to levels and limits that they themselves consider appropriate, then that is fine. However, if they are unhappy about unspecified Ofcom codes then perhaps it is time to demand some sort of clarification and use legally recognised TVWF directives rather than operate in a way that they think will keep Ofcom happy. But as I said before, if the money is being made, then why would they want to change the way things are? And what are they really doing to change things, if they want to?